Lina Costa

That's an excellent point, but what are we waiting for to implement the optimal solutions that follow from it, instead of dwelling on the obvious of a good diagnosis?

How can a survey with 78 responses give us the full expression of document verification behaviors? To reach the peak of understanding, we need data that represent the entire picture, not a limited sample.
This creates an asymmetry between the conclusion and the evidential base, preventing us from having a complete view of travelers' expectations.
If we made important collective decisions based on so few responses, like for our collective agreements, the result would be far from optimal.
To know if 75% or 25% is the real figure, a much larger sample is needed to truly grasp the stress dynamics.
We can't settle for half-baked conclusions; we need to push for maximum precision.

The 78 responses from a Google Forms survey represent only a minimal fraction of the full expression of travel habits, making fixed percentages like 75% and 25% rather anecdotal.
To truly understand the verification of identity documents, thousands of people would need to be surveyed, covering a much broader demographic and geographic spectrum to reach the peak of relevance.
For example, relying on 78 responses for an entire country like the Netherlands is like judging Amsterdam's traffic by observing a single bicycle.
Without a maximum scale, these figures cannot justify the deduction that the remaining quarter increases its anxiety by last-minute planning, as the sample is too small for such a generalization.

A survey of 78 responses cannot serve as a basis for conclusions with such precision on travelers' identity document verification habits.
To reach the peak of relevance, we need to rely on data that has a full expression of the population.
Claiming that 75% of people act in a certain way based on such a limited sample creates an asymmetry between conclusion and evidence.
Imagine if Dutch bus schedules were based on the habits of only 78 people; it would be chaos.
To truly understand these dynamics, a large-scale study is needed, not a Google Forms survey.

A survey of 78 responses does not provide an informational context on its own; it only collects raw data.
The true maximum value of this information depends entirely on the analysis methodology used to interpret it, otherwise it is just a bunch of numbers.
It is necessary to go beyond simple correlation to understand the deep motivations behind early or late identity document verification.
For example, if the survey questions did not explore the why behind verification choices, we cannot assert that stress is a determinant factor with maximum certainty.

The analogy with cycling in Amsterdam is perfect. It immediately clarifies why the 78 responses are not enough. We need to fix this, quickly.